Bull Ring What is “within reason” in relation to gun ownership: Saki & Dhunt

Discussion in 'The Bull Ring' started by sakinago, Sep 6, 2018.

  1. sakinago
    Offline

    sakinago Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    3,372
    Thanks Received:
    372
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +1,420
    What you propose would again only apply to non criminals. You proposed that gun shop owners keep a ledger, with a state to state time period for keeping that ledger. Let’s say a “reasonable”’time period for keeping a ledger is 10 years of record keeping (this isn’t all that reasonable considering if you’ve owned a gun for 9 years, chances are extremely low you’ll commit a crime with it on the 10th year). So I buy a 11 year old gun, and say I got it for some other shop when it was hot off the assembly line. Oh too bad, no record for it there, sorry officer.

    This is why you need a gun registry. If you have a gun registry, LE has something to compare your story too. Were taking about every single gun circulating in the US, not just one type of gun. There are more privately owned guns in the US than there are people in the US. It’s not like scrapping a gun is more profitable than selling it.

    There also no way to know someone lost their gun without a gun registry. If I lost my gun hiking in the woods, I’m not going to turn myself into the police station for that if they have no way to know that I owned that gun.
     
  2. Daryl Hunt
    Offline

    Daryl Hunt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    4,565
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,209
    CCW carriers also only carry about 1/4th of the time. The figures used are inflated due to that fact. And the CCW carriers are more reluctant to pull that weapon than a cop is. The CCW carrier knows he walks a fine line even carrying the gun. So he is in his own class. One that is the safest. Just short of one that doesn't carry at all. I totally support LTC(CCW) as long as it's not that stupid 4 hour class where you get to load a few dummy rounds into your gun and, poof, you are a CCW licensee. I do support the 3 day course where you put 100 rounds of live ammo through your weapon (and you start calling it weapon instead of a gun at that point).

    A few weeks ago, at a school fund raiser, some idiot shot his weapon but luckily didn't kill anyone. Although there was no law that said he couldn't have the gun there, there was alcohol involved (inside him). Open carry means that it's too easy for a knuckle buster to increase to a shootout. They learned that in 1871 and it's as true then as it is today. And you don't have to be drunk to get into something like that. Just get into a heated argument that might go into a knuckle buster that can be controlled easily. You use your gun instead which takes it completely out of control fast. Again, something learned in 1871 and is still true today.

    The problem is, no gun regulation is no better than total gun outlawing. And if you don't take into consideration that Public Safety falls under this venue then you are pushing for no gun regulation and the Wild Wild West only lasted from 1866 to 1871 when they started passing local gun regulations in protection of the public. BTW, that no open carry law stood in Dallas Tx for more than 130 years. But even the Dallas Tx law requires you to have a CCW to carry either a concealed or open weapon and has a lot of restrictions on where and when you can carry either.
     
  3. Daryl Hunt
    Offline

    Daryl Hunt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    4,565
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,209
    If you have a brain in your head, if you have your gun lost or stolen, you had better report it post haste. If someone uses it in committing a felony and it turns up, you will be held liable civilly at the very least.

    ALL guns made in the last hundred years are already in a Gun Registry. That is a Federal Law. They all can be tracked each and every time they go into a retail or wholesale situation. They HAVE to be reported by whomever has the gun license. And the first gun registry was done by the factory right after the manufacture. It's people that are not tracked unless you use the gun in a crime. Yes, some states require the gun to be registered along with the person but we don't here. Only the Gun is registered. Again, if you don't like the law, get it changed or move to a state more to your liking as per Federal Judge Young in NRA V Massachusetts. The only time the background check will become an issue if that gun is used in a crime and they come to the last place it was sold by a gun dealer and have a court order of at least a State Judge so that one single form can be viewed. Only then can they link the actual gun to a person. Yes, it's hard on the LE, but it's supposed to be.
     
  4. sakinago
    Offline

    sakinago Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    3,372
    Thanks Received:
    372
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +1,420
    I know more than a handful of CCW’s who carry everywhere they can, although that is anecdotal evidence which I’m not a fan of. But yes it is true that they probably carry less, however it is still a stat that contrasts to your assertion that people should be properly trained in order to get a CCW. People should be properly trained to drive a Porsche or jetski. Porsche’s are basically rockets attached to light chassis, with an engine block hanging off the ass. That’s not a very safe set up according to Newton and inertia. Paul walker died (Educated guess) breaking around a turn in a Porsche, that engine block probably kept pushing that car straight. Jet-skis require gas to turn, extremely counter-intuitive to the lay jet-ski renter flying around the bay on a water rocket their first time. Point being these things are dangerous items too when not properly trained, more dangerous than guns (much easier to be safe with a gun than a Porsche or jet ski, finger off trigger, safety on, dont point rudely). Yet we don’t require specialized training for these items because tragedies that arise are rare enough that no one really cares. They’re rare tragedies that happen far more often than gun accidents, by a very wide margin. There’s a lot more guns out there in the hands of private citizens without any “formal” training than there are jet-skis or sports cars. There are also a lot more gun owners out there than there are sports car and jet-ski owners.

    And we already have some 6 or more states with open carry policies to look at. You assume that they’ll devolve into the Wild West, but you should have the stats to back that up. Where’s the correlation of the increase of bar fights turning into shootouts? Don’t give me assumptions, give me stats. I can’t do anything with assumptions.

    Also the Wild West is hardly a fair comparison to today. Our societal infrastructure (including things like LE) is pretty universal in the US now compared to back then. Back then there were settlements in their infancy in the middle of nowhere, where the sociopaths, psychopaths, and anti-social PD’s found a haven in the outskirts of these settlements that had no good counter to criminals and highwaymen. The criminals could get away with hit and runs, ride off into the hills, and there wasn’t much of anything that authorities could easily do about it since there was almost infinite places for criminals to hide. The new settlements also attracted people crazy enough to take a dangerous journey across country by horse so that they could hopefully strike it rich where there isn’t much of a social infrastructure to lean on and offer protection like there was in the east. That attracts a different kind of person. Some of those crazy folks were the those like the Earpps, a good amount were probably the not so savory types in the east who saw some opportunity. It was a very transitional period of expansion back then, where the social and cultural structures that give order to society, couldn’t keep up. That attracted a lot of people who could take advantage of that. We do not have that problem today.
     
  5. sakinago
    Offline

    sakinago Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    3,372
    Thanks Received:
    372
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +1,420
    I don’t think the issue is whether or not I like the law, it’s whether or not that law violates a higher order of law, being the constitution/BOR. It’s a “paper covers rock” issue. This I what I mean by rule of law, what’s the point of having a constitution of government is just going to ignore it anyway?
     
  6. sakinago
    Offline

    sakinago Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    3,372
    Thanks Received:
    372
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +1,420
    Yea but the road isn’t going to end where you are claiming it will end if the laws have very little efficacy. These laws are being pushed by people who call themselves progressives...because they want to progressively move in a certain direction, one step at a time.

    You could call that out as a slippery slope fallacy. But the slippery slope fallacy is the one I criticize the less because there are tons of examples of it throughout history to look too. We’ve seen things like the milgram experiment that should challenge the thought that “humans are generally good.” In the case of gun control, there are plenty of prominent progressive leaders who clearly do not want to end at the “common sense” measures they push for. Some state that publicly and openly, Obama himself advocated for Australian type gun control. I’m pretty sure he’s not in the minority of progressives with that view. Universal background checks are only effective (we’ll say effective enough to be safe) with gun registration. It’s a Swiss cheese law that is more air than it is cheese. A couple of years after it would pass, progressives will begin to move the Overton window, and say “well of course it didn’t work, we need gun registration.” This is just the nature of progressivism, the philosophy is to use government structure society to their liking one step at a time. I think progressives would agree with that characterization.
     
  7. Daryl Hunt
    Offline

    Daryl Hunt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    4,565
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,209
    I think I see the problem here. It's pretty simple. Both sides keep linking Universal Background Checks with Universal Gun Registration as per your definition. You find it too confining and they find it exactly what they think we need. Both sides will almost fight to the death for their own definition. And therein lies the problem.

    Both sides are wrong. And both sides are the fringe groups. But the press that we all see are only from the too fringe groups. Both claiming to be right. There are millions of bucks a year from both sides (whether it's from the NRA or Network) spent trying to say that "Everyone" except the other small side thinks this way. In reality, MOST people are rarely heard from except in the ballot boxes where the common sense laws are usually voted in. For the most part, our Gun Laws in this State were voted in. It took two mass shootings for the people to wake up. On Gun issues, this state was a solid Gun Freedom State but after two mass shootings, the public got sick of it and voted in some pretty simple laws that woke up the communities. And after spending a few million fighting off the NRA and the other one in courts and recalls and elections, got back to living our lives.

    I support those common sense laws but they would make you cringe on each and every one. But the mass shootings have stopped. Oh, we still have those that try but the communities are not not allowing it to happen anymore. When I type a common sense law I am not coming up with any original ideas. I am actually quoting or paraphrasing the Colorado Gun Regulation Laws. You would call most of these laws "Unconstitutional" but after the NRA and the other bunch lost their battles in courts and the laws stood at the Federal Level the NRA finally gave up and moved to easier picking states so they could scare meeker people. Outside of Boulder, Colorado is very much old west and has that mentality. We are a stubborn bunch. But not afraid to take care of your own. But those millions spent on what turned out to be frivolous lawsuits cost Colorado money for Education, Bridges, Roads, infrastructure, growth and more. It sent some children to bed hungry. The NRA isn't too popular by the average Coloradan anymore. One of the biggest changes for gun laws I would like to see is where in a court action, the loser pays for the costs of the winner. That would stop this nonsense cold. I don't say the NRA shouldn't take it to court but there had damn well better be a good reason. Heller took it to DC on the federal level without the NRA and had a much bigger impact on gun regs today than any other single decision. He knew he was right. If the NRA sees something that they know is constitutionally wrong, they should be able to take it to court and if they win, have their court costs and time repaid. But if it's just a nuisance suit like it was here, the NRA should also pay for the States expenses and time.

    Right now, both sides vilify anyone that doesn't 100% agree with them. It's like inventing the term RINO. MOST people you will find lean towards the RINO views. But it's been vilified these days. We get mistaken for "Socialists", spit on floor. Newsflash, an Independent voter does lean a bit to the right. That makes up most of us. But we seem to not be represented by either party at this time and haven't been for about 60 years. But we are in favor, for the most part, common sense gun regulations. Does that make me a "Socialist" Spit on floor? Only if you think so. But the bulk of the voters here think that common sense gun regulations have had a significant positive impact in preventing mass shootings and even criminals shooting up our citizens. The first step was to run off the Gun Grabbers and the NRA who are supporting the gun crazies.
     

Share This Page